Defining free speech

[CrimsonJazz]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733927077085143263

America’s top universities should abandon their long misadventure into politics, retrain their gaze on their core strengths and rebuild their reputations as centers of research and learning. My take:

 

[AWRTR]

So your position is that the presidents of Yale, Vasser, and Northwestern would all be in agreement with the three presidents who testified before Congress?

I think what happened is the second president parroted the first, and the third did the same. They all said it was "contextual." Now you're cherry picking from a Wall Street Journal article and grouping enough of these people together to say this is pervasive. Maybe it is, but I'm just not seeing that.

I Googled "rescinded speaking invitations" and got nothing political except 4,000 students signing a petition at UC Berkley to rescind and invitation to Bill Maher, complaining that Maher is racist against Muslims.

The results for "campus self-censorship" were a bit more relevant, but I doubt these were the same results you get when Googling because I am left of center. Therefore, we get different Google results.

I will absolutely state that I believe they would agree with what was said in Congress. I imagine they wouldn’t say it out loud right now. I think you aren’t giving enough credit to the group think bubble within academia. They are very isolated in their professional and social circles. They run with the same crowds and all seem to think the same way.

 

[Go Bama]

You've asked a question, and I'll answer. But I think we probably just need to agree to disagree as to how pervasive leftward bias is on college campuses.

You've asked whether I think the presidents of Yale, Vassar and Northwestern would be in agreement with the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn that advocacy of violence is contextual. I think if they had been in the same Congressional hearing with the others, they would have voiced agreement.

Today, knowing that there's been massive pushback on Harvard, MIT and Penn, and virtually no credible defenders, no I don't think they'd agree. They're not stupid enough to put themselves in that position after seeing what happened to the first three.

The real test, though, is not what they did or didn't, would or wouldn't, say. The real test will be whether they embrace dissent now or in the future. To quote Nick Saban, "What you do is so loud I can't hear what you say."

Also in the WSJ article was this quote from Nadine Strossen, professor of law emerita at the New York Law School: "The problem with all the deans and presidents who have not defended free speech is not that they're activists, it's that they're spineless."

Which would be consistent with your contention that the first one made a jaw-dropping statement and the others just followed.

Maya Angelou has been quoted several times on TF as saying, "When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time." Generally speaking, that quote is used when someone inadvertently admits they're racially biased against black people, Asians, Native Americans, etc.

Thing is, the idea works just as well when someone is telling you they don't like Jews enough to condemn advocacy of violence against them.

Thank you for this response.

I don't disagree with you as much as I'm skeptical as to whether or not things are as bad as you say.

I always appreciate the thought that goes into your posts. While we don't always agree, I do agree with you from time to time and always respect your position. This is a post I have no argument with other than the skepticism I've already mentioned.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Thank you for this response.

I don't disagree with you as much as I'm skeptical that as to whether or not things are as bad as you say.

I always appreciate the thought that goes into your posts. While we don't always agree, I do agree with you from time to time and always respect your position. This is a post I have no argument with other than the skepticism I've already mentioned.

It's all good, friend.

No, we don't always agree, and that's fine. This sort of exchange is what TideFans is intended to be.

Something we agree on 100%: Roll Tide to you and a Happy Holiday Season to you and yours!

 

[TexasBama]

Identitarianism is the tag I have seen -- it will destroy us as a society.

Identitarian movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TIDE-HSV]

"Bubble" is not really the word for it. "Vacuum" would be more appropriate, and, agreeing with Go Bama, I think it's confined to certain institutions, not all. I had a close friend, Jewish, in law school, comment that right and left were really a circle, that, if you continued around the circle, they met and were really the same. I took it he meant in authoritarianism. I haven't explained it well, but I agreed with him and still do. Look at Russia...

 

[JDCrimson]

To your point you can end up with a dictator through communism (heading left) or fascism (heading right)...

"Bubble" is not really the word for it. "Vacuum" would be more appropriate, and, agreeing with Go Bama, I think it's confined to certain institutions, not all. I had a close friend, Jewish, in law school, comment that right and left were really a circle, that, if you continued around the circle, they met and were really the same. I took it he meant in authoritarianism. I haven't explained it well, but I agreed with him and still do. Look at Russia...

 

[Padreruf]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733927077085143263

But they are academicians...and smarter than all the rest of us...or so they think!

Except for the top of the food chain, i.e., tenured at major universities, most professors are paid at a barely subsistence level. IOW, that's how they are valued in our world.

Years ago I was asked about my interest in a position in religion at a major university in the South. I was until I discovered I would have to take a pay CUT with 2 sons in college...and as pastor of a medium sized church I was not getting wealthy. Reality is often an eye-opener.

 

[BamaFlum]

"Bubble" is not really the word for it. "Vacuum" would be more appropriate, and, agreeing with Go Bama, I think it's confined to certain institutions, not all. I had a close friend, Jewish, in law school, comment that right and left were really a circle, that, if you continued around the circle, they met and were really the same. I took it he meant in authoritarianism. I haven't explained it well, but I agreed with him and still do. Look at Russia...

My brother is a philosophy professor at a community college in CA. He is a conservative Christian and has felt welcome with people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Personally, I think it’s more prevalent at “big” schools vs your small colleges.

I’ve heard this trend called being stuck in our silos.

 

[Padreruf]

My brother is a philosophy professor at a community college in CA. He is a conservative Christian and has felt welcome with people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Personally, I think it’s more prevalent at “big” schools vs your small colleges.

I’ve heard this trend called being stuck in our silos.

And it can vary from person to person...I've known conservative & liberal profs who were adamant that their way was the only way...and many of the same who would listen to reason, etc., and accept the other's point of view. Rigidity is a characteristic of a corpse..

 

[crimsonaudio]

Harvard doubles-down on intellectual idiocy: Harvard’s board: We unanimously stand in support of President Gay

 

[4Q Basket Case]

A couple of things today.

There's a follow-up article in today's WSJ on the process by which Ms. Magill was removed as Penn's president. Long story short, the dispute between her and the boards of both the University and Wharton (Penn's business school) started over the summer. Here's a link to the article, though it is paywalled.

How Rich Alumni Ousted Penn’s President Liz Magill - WSJ

Yes, the boards began to voice concerns about anti-semitism well before Hamas' attack on October 7. IOW, Magill wasn't blindsided and in fact had months to formulate a coherent response. So the way she face-planted last week is an indication that she saw nothing wrong with Penn's attitudes toward free speech (including selective application) or that advocacy of violence toward any group is protected.

Imagine the reaction if a group of campus Republicans were waving posters of a black person on one side and a noose on the other, chanting "From sea to shining sea." Yet advocacy of killing Jews, chanting "From the river to the sea," is contextual and we'll think about it. I have no words.

Mark Rowan is the CEO of Apollo Global Management, and has donated over $50 million to Penn. He was on Penn's overall board until he left to become chair of a Jewish philanthropic group, but remains on Wharton's board of advisers. In a great quote, he said, "Microaggressions are condemned with extreme moral outrage and yet violence, particularly violence against Jews, antisemitism, has found a place of tolerance on the campus."

 

[Jon]

the truth about the rights love of freedom of speach, it is always for me not thee

Satanists expose the GOP doublespeak on "free speech" and bigoted rhetoric

The key to understanding the GOP furor over "anti-semitism" on campus? A altar to Lucifer in the Des Moines Capitol

www.salon.com

 

[Go Bama]

Harvard doubles-down on intellectual idiocy: Harvard’s board: We unanimously stand in support of President Gay

This is not doubling down. Gay acknowledged her error and her staff and alumni support her overwhelmingly.

“So many people have suffered tremendous damage and pain because of Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack, and the University’s initial statement should have been an immediate, direct, and unequivocal condemnation,” it said in a statement. “Calls for genocide are despicable and contrary to fundamental human values. President Gay has apologized for how she handled her congressional testimony and has committed to redoubling the University’s fight against antisemitism.”

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Harvard doubles-down on intellectual idiocy: Harvard’s board: We unanimously stand in support of President Gay

Gay made mis-steps before she finally came out with an unequivocal apology. Interestingly, the MIT president has received support from her board and faculty, but she herself has remained deafeningly silent, at least publicly.

But regardless of who apologized for what and when, the proof will come from future actions -- and not just regarding Jews, but any group.

As in, when the news cycle has moved on, the furor dies down, and provided they are expressed in a peaceful manner (and don't advocate killing anybody), will all viewpoints be up for discussion without threat of academic or physical reprisal for advocates of unpopular ones?

I'm skeptical.

 

[Its On A Slab]

You know, George Wallace knew about them lib'rul academics. Those "pointy-headed bureaucrats riding to work on a bike in their three-piece suits with a peanut butter sandwich in their briefcase."

 

[crimsonaudio]

This is not doubling down. Gay acknowledged her error and her staff and alumni support her overwhelmingly.

That any school would continue 'unequivocal support' for anyone incapable of answering the question she was asked tells me what's important to them.

Considering what her job entails, I'd suggest supporting someone who literally cannot think her way out of this situation in real time is indeed 'doubling down on idiocy'.

 

[Go Bama]

That any school would continue 'unequivocal support' for anyone incapable of answering the question she was asked tells me what's important to them.

Considering what her job entails, I'd suggest supporting someone who literally cannot think her way out of this situation in real time is indeed 'doubling down on idiocy'.

OK then. What would you call it if Gay had stood by her original “contextual” statement?

 

[92tide]

This is not doubling down. Gay acknowledged her error and her staff and alumni support her overwhelmingly.

it’s a feeding frenzy of outrage

 

[crimsonaudio]

OK then. What would you call it if Gay had stood by her original “contextual” statement?

I'd say as soon as she was unable, in real time, to answer the question I'd know we had chosen the wrong person to lead the university. It was such a simple question about something that shouldn't ever require any 'context', it's mind-boggling that a uni would consider this person the ideal to lead them.